What is a serious issue IMO is when the downramping cult pass something off as fact and then lightly dismiss it when called out (like your response to me today). How can holders take these posters seriously? IMO either they just don't know what they are talking about (sadly some comment across many areas of the business and believe they are experts across multiple fields) and/or just continue to sow the seeds of doubt day in and day out for their own personal agenda) - sound familiar?
By way of example, just 2 days ago
@whytee mentioned: "There may well be debt covenants which relate to minimal levels of cash. In which case the company might well need to raise additional cash to fund operations within the next few weeks."
@ddwn then pulled him up on the facts and
@whytee admitted he was
speculating. WOW - I suppose if you speculate you might as well go large - I mean speculating on needing to raise additional cash
within a few weeks without knowing the finer details of the funding agreement (and sounding like it is a sure thing). NOT COOL. FUD at its best!
The broader issue is that you downramping cult often post in a way you sound like an expert which is clearly not the case; and sheepishly admit 'my bad' when pulled up. But the greater problem is all the rampant speculation that gets through unchecked. I find it ironic that you downramping cult play the counterbalance (so called saving the general public from the overly optimistic holders) - but in doing so you all have become unbalanced in your own views - only focusing on the negatives without proper regard to the positives. Most shareholders would agree I imagine as why so many of us have a lot of the downramping cult on ignore.
Balance and honesty is the key. You are not an expert in designing FDA trials and Whytee is not an expert on finance etc. Let's not kid ourselves. Opinion is OK when framed as opinion and not fact.
So to answer your original question I tend to believe the experts over anonymous posters on hotcopper and value the opinions of knowledgeable posters (there is traces of gold in these forums).
So I am happy with the FDA's guidance as opposed to your opinions regarding placebo choice for the Phase III CLBP trial; and as a side note regarding CHF I tend to listen more to SI and Dr Perrin than yourself believe it or not. For as you have said before you don't know what you don't know and my money is on SI and Dr Perrin knowing a ton more than you I am afraid. In addition they have access to more data/FDA discourse compounding this effect (and I am sure things are done the way they are for a good reason).
At the end of the day, IMO (see what I have done here - I used IMO because it is my views and I am no expert) the future cash flows from Rex-L will be more guided as time passes by Real World Experience on a much larger global scale as opposed to physicians falling back on the nuances of the two Phase III trials (although they are important to kick things off so to say).
If I were to speculate (see what I have done here - I said speculate as opposed to passing it off as fact) I would think:
* Some physicians will be pushing Rex-L hard at the earlier stage of CLBP (earlier the better approach) because they have seen through real experiences that some patients deteriorate to the point of surgery and become addicted to Opiods on that route (i.e. putting patient's long term health comes first, especially if a durable dose repeated in next trial). Kind of like with CHF where if you treat early you can slow/halt disease progression and increase Quality of Life. Rex-L for CLBP to minimise/avoid the need for more costly options as disease progresses - and physicians can see the opportunity cost in not taking this safe and early approach.
* Some physicians will use Rex-L when other options fail, e.g. corticosteroid injections; or alternatively at risk of opioid addiction or have side effects with their current treatment regimen.
(20min delay)